this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2024
183 points (98.4% liked)
Health - Resources and discussion for everything health-related
2398 readers
398 users here now
Health: physical and mental, individual and public.
Discussions, issues, resources, news, everything.
See the pinned post for a long list of other communities dedicated to health or specific diagnoses. The list is continuously updated.
Nothing here shall be taken as medical or any other kind of professional advice.
Commercial advertising is considered spam and not allowed. If you're not sure, contact mods to ask beforehand.
Linked videos without original description context by OP to initiate healthy, constructive discussions will be removed.
Regular rules of lemmy.world apply. Be civil.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I would bet dollars to donuts that this poor woman supported abortion restrictions before she wanted one. Based on the way she's talking about it, she's acting like most women (not her, of course) seeking abortions are irresponsible. And the end of the article, she has a quote that 6 weeks is not long enough for responsible women, as though there is any length of time that makes sense for legislators to make medical decisions for women and their doctors.
I read her statements more as "I took reasonable steps to protect myself, which ultimately didn't work, and then my state made it impossible to get professional medical care."
That's entirely possible. It just struck me wrong the way she was talking about how she was being responsible and 6 weeks isn't enough for people who do everything right. It kind of implies that she thinks there should be a line, but 6 weeks is too soon.
Like, why do the "reasonable" steps matter at all? What difference does it make that she was using contraception? An abortion is an abortion, and the people involved in the decision to have one or not are the mother and the doctor.
I’ll be honest, you seem to be jumping to a lot of conclusions about this woman. Nowhere does she say anything about doing everything right. Yes she has to defend herself. She’s a woman who got pregnant out of wedlock. Do you not understand the stigmas women have to endure because of things like men and religion? I’d be apprehensive too if I were in her position. You’re right though, it shouldn’t matter about reasonable steps. But they do matter. And that’s a travesty too.
She's making a legal case presenting herself as the perfect case scenario. It's just a tactic to present the best argument possible to get the law overturned for everyone, even people who can't pretend to be perfect.
No, see this is why I'm irritated by the argument. By implying that there is a "perfect," you concede far too much to the fascists. The best argument possible is this is a private decision between a woman and her doctor. Anyone who disagrees is an asshole, and should be made to feel like one.
If there was a law that we stone women who commit adultery to death, you wouldn't argue against it by pointing out the child bride of a coma patient fell in love with her husband's caregiver, and they found comfort in each others' arms. No, the law is bad because it is barbaric, evil, and misogynistic.
By trying to argue that she did everything "responsible" to avoid a pregnancy, you leave the door open for the fascist to say "ah-ha, but she didn't do everything she could, because she got pregnant." There's no compromise to be had with fascism.
Ok, when you can win in court with that strategy, go for it.
In the meanwhile, I'll accept the most likely to win a good outcome and get this law overturned. Sorry, I'll forever be realpolitik like that.
If you think she will get the law overturned, and it will stop there, you're in for a sad ride.
Ok, well you wave your magic wand and fix all the problems all at once. I, for one, am not going to hold my breath for that. Better is better.
I'd rather push for actual progress than attempt to compromise with fascists and concede half their argument. Progress is the slow boring of hard boards. Conceding ground is giving comfort to those who would oppress and subjugate everyone else.
Overturning a law that hurts women isn't progress? Because the way they're choosing to argue isn't pure enough for you?
If you shift the overton window into pure fascism in the process, no it is not progress.
If you insist on ideological purity even when it will obstruct a tangible victory, then YOU have actually let the fascists win.
How can you not see that? Your pure argument fails, their fascist law stands, the fascists win. Or you make an argument that is distasteful, get the law overturned, and give real, tangible benefits to the people who need it, therefore the fascists DID NOT WIN.
I'm not fighting a philosophical war; I'm fighting a REAL one.